Filling this out has required a number of judgment calls. I am prepared to explain my assessments but not prepared to answer, ahead of time, every question that might arise. Let me know if you want something explained.

Perhaps the row that will raise the most eyebrows is the set of 'fails' under 'retract'. The point here is that it if nothing can be assumed about the meaning that a receiver cooperating with the proposal gives a hashless URI in RDF, then it doesn't make sense for senders to use that URI in new documents. Worse, there is no specification in place to explain what past uses of the URI meant. It does not help to say that retraction paves the way for some future agreement; to get something reliable you have to write down what the agreement is - and that means "some agreement", not "no agreement".